Ocasio-Cortez hits NYT over story on Hope Hicks: It’s framed ‘as some Lifetime drama’

Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.) criticized The New York Times on Sunday over an article on President Trump’s former communications director Hope Hicks, saying their coverage of her decision to comply with a subpoena read “as some Lifetime drama called ‘Hope’s Choice.'”

The freshman lawmaker wrote two tweets echoing media figures’ criticism of the article, which looks at Hicks’s history in the White House and how she might respond to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler’s (D-N.Y.) recent subpoena for her to testify as part of a sprawling investigation into the Trump administration.

“What gets me is news breaks that this woman is weighing committing a crime before Congress &it’s getting framed by the NYT as some Lifetime drama called ‘Hope’s Choice,'” Ocasio-Cortez wrote in one tweet.{mosads}

“In the immediate aftermath of shootings, media routinely post menacing photos of people-of-color victims + dredge up any questionable thing they’d ever done,” she wrote in another tweet. “But when Hope Hicks considers not complying w a subpoena, it’s glamour shot time.”
 

What gets me is news breaks that this woman is weighing committing a crime before Congress &it’s getting framed by the NYT as some Lifetime drama called “Hope’s Choice.”

This is a fmr admin official considering participating in a coverup led by the President.

Treat her equally. https://t.co/XcNbSuU4QB

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) May 26, 2019

Yup. Where’s the “no angel” take now?

In the immediate aftermath of shootings, media routinely post menacing photos of people-of-color victims + dredge up any questionable thing they’d ever done.

But when Hope Hicks considers not complying w a subpoena, it’s glamour shot time. https://t.co/ACnvXlKF7Q

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) May 26, 2019 

Ocasio-Cortez’s criticism added to that of media figures who said failing to comply with a subpoena is a crime and not something “to decide.” 

i think the idea of ‘existential’ is not that if she complies she will cease to exist but that if she complies she will cease to be hope hicks https://t.co/XTLMna8Tip

— elizabeth bruenig (@ebruenig) May 26, 2019

There is nothing for Hope Hicks to “decide.” She got a subpoena from Congress. Were she not white, wealthy, and connected, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. She would appear, or she would face the threat of prison like the rest of us. As she should. https://t.co/giDCcvIxvf

— Jamil Smith (@JamilSmith) May 26, 2019

Perhaps Hope Hicks can assert existential privilege… https://t.co/4qb0Vd5Deo

— Julia Macfarlane (@juliamacfarlane) May 26, 2019

I totally get Hope Hicks’ dilemma. Right now I’m facing the existential question “should I rob a bank?”

I’m ready for my glam shot now if I could just get this fake eyelash glue right dagnabbit https://t.co/cUiJaL4ezM

— Imani Gandy (@AngryBlackLady) May 26, 2019

Subpoenas from House Democrats have become the center of a feud between the White House and congressional committees investigating the president. 

President Trump ordered former White House counsel Don McGahn not to comply with a subpoena earlier this month, prompting Nadler to threaten to hold him in contempt.